Catholicism and Climate Change

[JasonSB]

Actually no.

I need only to read your statement and assign truths or falsehoods, as we know them.

Truth: Did the problem contain objects of mass said to be accelerating at speed of light? Yes.

No. There was a train travelling at exactly 2 km/h below the speed of light. That’s a fixed velocity – no acceration. Implicit in that statement is the idea that it is travelling at exactly 2 km/h below the speed of light relative to some inertial reference frame, because velocity always has to be measured relative to something. This means, for example, that the train could well have been stopped at a train station and the inertial reference frame in question was attached to an observer travelling at exactly 2 km/h below the speed of light in the opposite direction. It doesn’t matter. It’s all relative, remember?

There was also a passenger walking at exactly 4 km/h from the back of the train to the front of the train. The “exactly 4 km/h” part was meant to convey that their reference frame was inertial as well. How they came to be travelling at 4 km/h with respect to the train’s reference frame is outside the scope of the example. They could have been walking along the platform and stepped onboard the stationary train at the rear of the train and kept walking at the same speed all the way along it. This wouldn’t change the fact that the speed of that passenger as measured by the observer travelling at exactly 2 km/h below the speed of light in the opposite direction is still below the speed of light, despite the fact that the observer measures the speed of the train relative to them to be 2 km/h below the speed of light and the passenger measures his speed relative to the train to be 4 km/h and travelling in the opposite direction to the aforementioned observer.

Truth: Objects of mass can not accelerate at speed of light. this is ALL I need to know. I don’t even need to know why ].

The problem is that it doesn’t apply because there was no mention of acceleration in the example, as I already said.

Truth: I need nothing more than to state this.

Truth: The statement, as written, would be false.

Sigh…

Of course the statement is false.

The scenario I described is a very simple and well-known illustration of velocity addition. I never mentioned acceleration. I deliberately chose inertial reference frames to keep it simple.

I can’t believe that I even have to explain this. I didn’t, for one minute, think that you would actually misunderstand the theory and we would have to argue about why the statement is false.

The point of the example was to show that if you were to use common-sense arguments about how velocities should add to “prove” that Relativity was wrong and that scientists were stupid, and I was unable to convince you why the common-sense argument was wrong, it would in no way prove that scientists are stupid for not knowing common-sense things.

And your analogy would be wrong, as I’ve shown…kimmie would not have responded that way, with knowledge of that one law, as we know it. Objects of mass can not accelerate at the speed of light.

As I said, Suppose kimmielittle responded by observing…. It was a hypothetical situation to illustrate a problem and it makes no difference what you actually would have responded in those circumstances.

The fact that you actually seem to think that the passenger is incapable of walking forward on the train at 4 m/s with respect to the train’s inertial reference frame is just a happy coincidence.

 

[JasonSB]

Can you offer evidence, within your link, that they stated this, **“who claimed that 9/11 was a mob hit and not al-Qaeda at all: **”,?

By hitting the 89[sup]th[/sup] floor of One World Trade Center, al-Qaeda’s first-time pilot hijacker of American Airlines Flight 11, managed to miss the Buttonwood Global Custodians’ offices on the 79[sup]th[/sup] floor below, while killing all of their Cantor-eSpeed competitors on the 101[sup]st[/sup] floor and above.

…]

A redux conclusion: It is even possible that this is not mob related?

If this is mob, did the mob know of the impending attack on 9/11? The terrorist-piloted plane hit Cantor Fitzgerald directly–one floor below where they were located. This would be the worst possible spot because the flames would go up and engulf everything. Could this really be only sheer coincidence? No suicide jockey flying a plane for the first time coincidentally hit right where the mob knew they would hit.

What are the odds of a six-member executive team surviving the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center while almost 800 of their employees burned or jumped 103 stories to their death?

The plane had to be aimed very carefully which implies GPS and targeting not a nut flying for the first time.

Do you buy the story that they found Mohammed Atta’s suicide note and luggage, including a will but not two black boxes?

Emphasis mine. Let’s see, now – which part of the expressed doubts that a “first time highjacker” could possibly have hit their competitor’s offices while missing their own makes it sound like they believe this wasn’t a targetted “hit”? Was it when they claim the plane must have been aimed very carefully and not by a “nut” flying for the first time? No, that can’t be it. Was it the bit where they ridiculed the idea that Atta’s suicide note was found? No, not that. In fact, it sounds an awful lot to me like they think the whole idea that it could have been done by a “suicide jockey flying a plane for the first time” is ridiculous.

What WAS stated: They bring questions of association of knowledge, nothing more, as anyone reading the story with objectivity can easily see. AND they attribute it to “terrorists”.

Anyone reading the story with objectivity would easily see that they don’t think it’s a coincidence that the plane hit where it did. They are claiming more than foreknowledge, they specifically claim that the plane deliberately targetted certain competitors and, furthermore, that a first-time nut could not have achieved that, implying additional GPS and targetting technology were used to achive the objective.

You quoted the first two sentences from a paragraph and then omitted the concluding two: “Could this really be only sheer coincidence? No suicide jockey flying a plane for the first time coincidentally hit right where the mob knew they would hit.” You call that “objectivity”?

To question the validity of ** their ** question, one would have to disprove them. I see plenty of links / resources to merit their question. Do you have information why their question should not be asked?

You know, I have to admit that this line of reasoning comes as a surprise even from you.

I really don’t know what to say.

 

[kimmielittle]

How about the following survey of over 300 climate scientists around the world, courtesy of John21652: coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf 78.92% of the scientists agreed AGW poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity. Only 9.27% disagreed.

Oh wow! A poll that proves AGW - I guess the science is settled

Since you place such stock in this poll - I can only assume this poll Is correct

I did a simple search for both these numbers within the pdf
**78.92% and 9.27% ** I tried 78% and also 9% as well.

I found no match.

Maybe you can post your findings, within this poll, in order that we can investigate your claims.

 

[kimmielittle]

The problem is that it doesn’t apply because there was no mention of acceleration in the example, as I already said.

and the same person was to walk at exactly 4 km/h from the back of the train to the front of the train,

Indicates acceleration.

and the same person was to walk at exactly 4 km/h from the back of the train to the front of the train,

Indicates amount of accleration

and the same person was to walk at exactly 4 km/h from the back of the train to the front of the train,

Indicates direction of accleration

Note it does not matter if the train is accelerating or not - the premise is that the person is accelerating at or above the speed of light. No matter if on the train, or not. It is false on that premise alone.

The statement would be false no matter how the person was accelerating.

The statement needs no argument in relativity.

It is a matter of kinetic energy which goes to infinity at the speed of light, and can never be reached by acceleration, as we know it, now.

Objects of mass can not accelerate at the speed of light.

 

[kimmielittle]

By hitting the 89[sup]th[/sup] floor of One World Trade Center, al-Qaeda’s first-time pilot hijacker of American Airlines Flight 11, managed to miss the Buttonwood Global Custodians’ offices on the 79[sup]th[/sup] floor below, while killing all of their Cantor-eSpeed competitors on the 101[sup]st[/sup] floor and above.

…]

A redux conclusion: It is even possible that this is not mob related?

If this is mob, did the mob know of the impending attack on 9/11? The terrorist-piloted plane hit Cantor Fitzgerald directly–one floor below where they were located. This would be the worst possible spot because the flames would go up and engulf everything. Could this really be only sheer coincidence? No suicide jockey flying a plane for the first time coincidentally hit right where the mob knew they would hit.

What are the odds of a six-member executive team surviving the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center while almost 800 of their employees burned or jumped 103 stories to their death?

The plane had to be aimed very carefully which implies GPS and targeting not a nut flying for the first time.

**Do you buy the story that they found Mohammed Atta’s suicide note and luggage, including a will but not two black boxes?**Emphasis mine. Let’s see, now – which part of the expressed doubts that a “first time highjacker” could possibly have hit their competitor’s offices while missing their own makes it sound like they believe this wasn’t a targetted “hit”? Was it when they claim the plane must have been aimed very carefully and not by a “nut” flying for the first time? No, that can’t be it. Was it the bit where they ridiculed the idea that Atta’s suicide note was found? No, not that. In fact, it sounds an awful lot to me like they think the whole idea that it could have been done by a “suicide jockey flying a plane for the first time” is ridiculous.

Anyone reading the story with objectivity would easily see that they don’t think it’s a coincidence that the plane hit where it did. They are claiming more than foreknowledge, they specifically claim that the plane deliberately targetted certain competitors and, furthermore, that a first-time nut could not have achieved that, implying additional GPS and targetting technology were used to achive the objective.

You quoted the first two sentences from a paragraph and then omitted the concluding two: “Could this really be only sheer coincidence? No suicide jockey flying a plane for the first time coincidentally hit right where the mob knew they would hit.” You call that “objectivity”?

You know, I have to admit that this line of reasoning comes as a surprise even from you.

I really don’t know what to say.

Oh my my my…

Maybe, we can teach the difference between ** subjective speculations ** and FACTS

The whole article is **subjective speculation ** by the author. FACT

You have injected your ** subjective speculation ** into their ** subjective speculation **. FACT

FACT: Your claim

"who claimed that 9/11 was a mob hit and not al-Qaeda at all:"

. Isn’t supported without your subjective speculation

 

[John21652]

telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8131383/The-climate-change-scare-is-dying-but-do-our-MPs-notice.html The climate change scare is dying, but do our MPs notice? Nothing more poignantly reflects the collapse of the great global warming scare than the decision of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, the largest in the world, to stop trading in “carbon” – buying and selling the right of businesses to continue emitting CO2. A few years back, when the climate scare was still at its height, and it seemed the world might agree the Copenhagen Treaty and the US Congress might pass a “cap and trade” bill, it was claimed that the Chicago Exchange would be at the centre of a global market worth $10 trillion a year, and that “carbon” would be among the most valuable commodities on earth, worth more per ton than most metals. Today, after the collapse of Copenhagen and the cap and trade bill, the carbon price, at five cents a ton, is as low as it can get without being worthless. Here in Britain, as the first snows fall, heralding what may be our fourth cold winter in a row, it is time we addressed one of the most glaring political “disconnects” in our sadly misgoverned country. Next Friday is the first anniversary of the leaking of the “Climategate” emails – the correspondence of a small group of scientists at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). By exposing their manipulation of data and suppression of dissent, these called their reputation as disinterested scientists seriously into question. But that was only the first in a series of events that, in the past year, saw the climate scare going off the rails. Next month sees the anniversary of the Copenhagen conference – the largest ever held, with upwards of 100,000 people present – which collapsed in an acrimonious shambles, without the treaty that would have landed the world with the biggest bill in history. This was followed by all those scandals surrounding the IPCC itself, hitherto regarded as the supreme authority on global warming. It emerged that the most recent IPCC report was riddled with errors, and that many of its more alarming predictions were based, not on proper science, but on claims dreamed up by environmental activists. Since then, despite a series of unconvincing attempts to clear the Climategate scientists, it has become clear that the 20-year-old climate scare is dying on its feet. The money draining away from the Chicago exchange speaks louder than all those inquiries – and the same point will be made obvious in a fortnight’s time in Cancun, Mexico, as the UN attempts to salvage something from the wreckage at a conference that will draw scarcely a tenth of the numbers that met in Copenhagen. But to all this deflation of the bubble our political class in Britain remains quite impervious. Our governments in London and Brussels charge on with completely unreal and damaging policies which increasingly look as much of a shambles as the warming scare which inspired them. Scarcely a single politician dares question the Climate Change Act, by far the most expensive law in history, which commits Britain, uniquely in the world, to reducing its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent in 40 years. By the Government’s own estimates, this will cost up to £18 billion a year. Any hope that we could begin to meet such a target without closing down most of our economy is as fanciful as the idea that we can meet our EU commitment to generate 30 per cent of our electricity by 2020 from “renewable” sources, such as wind and solar. It was recently reported that farmers are rushing to cash in on the ludicrous subsidies which could earn them £50,000 a year for covering 35 acres of their fields with solar panels bought from China. These yield, on average, only 8 per cent of their capacity. Last year, all the solar panels in Britain generated an average 2.3 megawatts, barely 1/500th of the output of a single medium-sized coal-fired power station. Yet our Government wants us to pour billions of pounds into this scheme, just when Spain, Germany and Australia have drastically reduced their own solar subsidies, because the billions they lavished on them turned out to be a total waste of money for virtually no return. Our Government also wants us to pay £100 billion through our electricity bills for thousands more wind turbines over the next 10 years, with another £40 billion to hook them up to the grid. Yet it’s predicted that by 2013, thanks to soaring costs and technical problems, orders for turbines will have fallen by 93 per cent. The EU continues to set targets to power our transport with an increasing percentage of biofuels, when a new report from some of its own advisers finds that meeting its 2020 target will mean taking an area of farmland as large as Ireland out of food production, and that producing biofuels requires up to 167 per cent more energy from fossil fuels than they theoretically save. None of this, of course, will do anything to save Britain from the looming crisis when the ageing nuclear and coal-fired power stations which supply 40 per cent of our current electricity needs are forced to close. The other night when it was very cold I checked to see how much of our electricity was, at that moment, coming from wind. The answer was 0.1 per cent, or a thousandth of all the power we were actually using to keep our homes lit and warm. It appears that Chris Huhne, our Energy and Climate Change Secretary, is so obsessed with the half of his job relating to climate change that he can happily ignore the other half, to do with keeping the lights on. But Mr Huhne is far from alone. Not a single MP of any party has yet found the courage to mount a properly briefed challenge to all this lunacy. So what do we pay them for?

 

[Ender]

Now they know that “the reason our cities are warmer and warming faster than the surrounding countryside during the day is because of the urbanisation” (empahsis mine). In other words:

1. AGW is real.

Warming may be real but the fact of warming says nothing whatever about whether its cause is anthropogenic.

1. They already knew how much of the increased trend in night-time temperatures in urban areas was caused by UHI and how much was caused by AGW.

Untrue again. They may have separated the UHI contribution but that surely proves nothing about the cause of the remainder of the warming.

1. Now they know how much of the increased trend in day-time temperatures in urban areas is caused by UHI and how much is caused by AGW.

No, they don’t. If they remove the UHI component properly then all they know is what the true amount of warming was but this provides no evidence as to its cause.

So what does Watts say? He tries to pretend that UHI is news to the BoM and that this is a big deal, ignoring the fact that Hansen and Jones were talking about UHI when Watts got his first job as a TV weatherman.

Perhaps the BoM should have been reading more as their recent announcement that “Bureau of Meteorology researchers have found that daytime temperatures in our cities are warming more rapidly than those of the surrounding countryside and that this is due to the cities themselves.” surely implies that this realization was new to them. I take that to be what “have found” means.

Whatever the cause, after identifying and supposedly adjusting for the UHI it is interesting to note that the raw data shows a smaller warming trend than does the adjusted data. Given that the raw data would include the UHI, this result is a bit counterintuitive.

“A recent BOM media release referring to a paper presented at the Australia - New Zealand Climate Forum in Hobart (October 14, 2010) admits it formulated its calculations incorrectly.” It “admits” no such thing. They worked out something new.

True, it admitted nothing. They demonstrated that their calculations were incorrect when they started doing them differently.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Last year, all the solar panels in Britain generated an average 2.3 megawatts, barely 1/500th of the output of a single medium-sized coal-fired power station. Yet our Government wants us to pour billions of pounds into this scheme, just when Spain, Germany and Australia have drastically reduced their own solar subsidies, because the billions they lavished on them turned out to be a total waste of money for virtually no return. Our Government also wants us to pay £100 billion through our electricity bills for thousands more wind turbines over the next 10 years, with another £40 billion to hook them up to the grid. Yet it’s predicted that by 2013, thanks to soaring costs and technical problems, orders for turbines will have fallen by 93 per cent. The EU continues to set targets to power our transport with an increasing percentage of biofuels, when a new report from some of its own advisers finds that meeting its 2020 target will mean taking an area of farmland as large as Ireland out of food production, and that producing biofuels requires up to 167 per cent more energy from fossil fuels than they theoretically save.

This is one of the major reasons I do not take seriously the claims made by the AGW crowd. The belief that we can significantly replace conventional power plants with “renewable” sources is a fantasy. There are surely applications for solar, wind, and biofuels but those applications do not include energy farms except in unusual circumstances. If CO2 emissions are really causing global warming, and if that warming is really going to cause significant problems, then the only viable solution is to replace conventional power plants with nuclear plants. If someone is not pushing for the nuclear solution he is not serious about AGW, and if the people who say they believe in AGW demonstrate that they don’t take their arguments seriously then I see no reason why I should take them seriously either.

Ender

 

[Tigg]

The science disagrees.
Tigg;7264802:

I’m not understanding how the conclusion can be drawn that this is a moral issue when the science does not support that it is even real.

Well, this thread has 56 pages of debate on that!

 

[4elise]

The science disagrees.

You want empirical evidence? skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

The human fingerprint? skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html

What the scientists think? skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/poll_scientists.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Consensus_publications.gif

How about the following survey of over 300 climate scientists around the world, courtesy of John21652: coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf 78.92% of the scientists agreed AGW poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity. Only 9.27% disagreed.

Empirical evidence confirms the theory, the overwhelming majority of scientists not only agree with the theory (and the more qualfied they are to form an opinion, the more strongly they agree), nearly 80% of them in one study agree that it’s a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity, and you say you don’t understand how it’s a moral issue “when the science does not support that it is even real”? I’m the one who’s confused. Exactly what percentage of climate scientists do you need to say that it’s a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity before it becomes a moral issue?

That is EXACTLY why I am grateful for the voice of the Church - which some may chose to ignore, water down, take to mean something completely else - we must work to mitigate climate change because of its impact on people - it IS a moral issue.

 

[kimmielittle]

it IS a moral issue.

Actually, it isn’t up to you to say whether AGW is, or isn’t.

Only, the Holy Father has that authority for Catholics.

You have expressed what you think are moral issues, on other threads before. In which the Holy Father hasn’t issued a moral standing for Catholics.

Unless, you can show The Holy Father embraces AGW and solutions offered by the IPCC / UN… It’s concocting words to meet your desires IMO

 

[JasonSB]

Oh wow! A poll that proves AGW - I guess the science is settled

Since you place such stock in this poll - I can only assume this poll Is correct

Strange. I didn’t notice any sarcasm when John21652 originally brought it up. You must have also missed my earlier reply.

I did a simple search for both these numbers within the pdf
**78.92% and 9.27% ** I tried 78% and also 9% as well.

I found no match.

Well, if that’s an indication of the effort you put in to reading scientific reports, it’s no wonder you have such a distorted view of the science.

I mean, seriously, if this is beyond your investigative abilities, we may as well give up now.

Maybe you can post your findings, within this poll, in order that we can investigate your claims.

Amazingly it must have taken you longer to post this response than it would have to actually confirm it for yourself.

But since this seems to be a little bit complicated for you, I’ll explain.

Question 22 on page 47 asks: “How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?” If you had chosen to search for “very serious and dangerous threat to humanity”, the words I used, you would have found it immediately. I guess that was too much to expect.

Anyway, repondents were asked to answer with a number from 1 to 7, with “1” meaning “not at all” and “7” meaning “very much”.

I chose to associate values less than 4 with “disagree” and values greater than 4 with “agree”. I was being generous, because any value greater than 1 means they are convinced to some degree. Only 1.162% of respondents said they were not at all convinced that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity. The rest were convinced to varying degrees, with 7 having the largest number and over 60% responding with either 6 or 7.

On the other hand, I also conflated “climate change” with AGW, which is not quite the same thing. (This wasn’t intentional.) OTOH, the immediately preceeding question was “How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?”, to which nearly 90% of respondents answered 4 or higher. Only 1.351% were “not at all convinced”.

Now, if we are to assume this survey is a valid indicator of the opinions of the most qualified people in the world to have such opinions – and John21652 clearly thought it was when he brought it up – then it’s hard to disagree with the idea that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think that AGW poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity.

If you have any scientifically-valid surveys that produce conflicting results, feel free to share them.

 

[Edward_H]

Actually, it isn’t up to you to say whether AGW is, or isn’t.

Only, the Holy Father has that authority for Catholics.

You have expressed what you think are moral issues, on other threads before. In which the Holy Father hasn’t issued a moral standing for Catholics.

Unless, you can show The Holy Father embraces AGW and solutions offered by the IPCC / UN… It’s concocting words to meet your desires IMO

There is a moral side to the environment that is rarely mentioned, and I think it’s something the Catholic Church would be doing a great service to focus on.

If our personal impact to the environment is due to our laziness, sloth, attachment to things, vanity, greed, then the Church should help us to recognize these sorts of weaknesses.

The Church shouldn’t get wrapped up in the global power point of the environment, but should instead focus at the individual moral point.

If I throw the oil down the storm drain because I am lazy and don’t want to exert the effort to dispose of it properly, that’s a moral issue the Church should remind me about.

If I am vane, and try to acquire a car every year in order to feel popular, that’s a moral issue that could lead to other problems.

If I drive in small ways the demand for all sorts of exotic foods because I like their taste and think that I deserve these, maybe there’s a deeper moral weakness in me.

If I am too lazy to take care of my tools and let them rust and then simply go purchase more tools, then there’s a problem.

And if all such habits set others off to live in the same way…

This is the moral problem that needs to be surfaced to Catholics, not the nonsense about Global Warming and power politics, and “sending messages” and earth worship, and forced compliance and removal of freedom…a Totalitarian approach to the environment for instance.

Some of these described ways of living…in sloth…in vanity…are indicators of other problems with my interior life.

 

[JasonSB]

Well, this thread has 56 pages of debate on that!

No. This thread has 57 pages of some people trying to explain what the science actually says and some other people putting their fingers in their ears and saying “lalalala I can’t hear you I can’t hear you”…

The science says what the science says. Everything I said in my response to you can be found in the scientific literature. The empirical evidence for global warming – from the rising CO2 levels, to the effect of those levels on infrared radiation, to the accumulation of heat on the planet – is a direct, reproducible measurement that has been published in peer-reviewed scientific papers and that nobody here has refuted. The anthropogenic fingerprint – from the correlation between CO2 levels and our output of CO2, to the decline in atmospheric oxygen as fossil fuels are burned, to the change in carbon isotope ratios, etc. – is a direct, reproducible measurement that has been published in peer-reviewed scientific papers and that nobody here has refuted. And finally, the opinions of the scientists themselves – those who are most qualified to know – is taken from various surveys and studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature by the scientists themselves to emphasise how convinced they are. Nobody here has produced a single scientific study that showed any different.

(A few people have reported the results of voluntary online polls and petitions that allowed anybody with a degree to respond, but as I’m sure we’re all aware, these are not scientifically valid. They make good TV and are widely used by PR and marketing firms, but there’s a reason why they aren’t used when you really want to know what people think.)

In this entire thread, do you think there have been any scientifically valid objections raised? Objections that actually show the evidence is not consistent with the theory?

 

[kimmielittle]

There is a moral side to the environment that is rarely mentioned, and I think it’s something the Catholic Church would be doing a great service to focus on.

If our personal impact to the environment is due to our laziness, sloth, attachment to things, vanity, greed, then the Church should help us to recognize these sorts of weaknesses.

The Church shouldn’t get wrapped up in the global power point of the environment, but should instead focus at the individual moral point.

If I throw the oil down the storm drain because I am lazy and don’t want to exert the effort to dispose of it properly, that’s a moral issue the Church should remind me about.

If I am vane, and try to acquire a car every year in order to feel popular, that’s a moral issue that could lead to other problems.

If I drive in small ways the demand for all sorts of exotic foods because I like their taste and think that I deserve these, maybe there’s a deeper moral weakness in me.

If I am too lazy to take care of my tools and let them rust and then simply go purchase more tools, then there’s a problem.

And if all such habits set others off to live in the same way…

This is the moral problem that needs to be surfaced to Catholics, not the nonsense about Global Warming and power politics, and “sending messages” and earth worship, and forced compliance and removal of freedom…a Totalitarian approach to the environment for instance.

Some of these described ways of living…in sloth…in vanity…are indicators of other problems with my interior life.

:clapping::clapping::clapping: Well said!

 

[JasonSB]

Indicates acceleration.

Indicates amount of accleration

Indicates direction of accleration

Kimmielittle, do you know the difference between velocity and acceleration?

Note it does not matter if the train is accelerating or not - the premise is that the person is accelerating at or above the speed of light. No matter if on the train, or not. It is false on that premise alone.

The whole point of the example is that no matter how fast the train is going, a passenger can still get up and walk as fast as they like to the front of the train and they will still not be going faster than the speed of light.

In fact, even if the train was going at 99.999% the speed of light, and the passenger shone a torch from the back of the train to the front, the passenger would still measure the light as going at the speed of light compared to the train.

Meanwhile, an outside observer watching the train whoosh past, would see the train travelling at 99.999% the speed of light and would see the light from the torch travelling from the back of the train to the front at the speed of light compared to the outside observer.

Both of them see the light travelling at the speed of light compared to themselves.

Back to the example I gave. Let’s consider three different scenarios. Since you seem obsessed with acceleration I’ll include that as well this time.

Scenario 1. The train is stopped at the train station. The passenger (Jason) is at the back of the train. Jason then accelerates from a velocity of 0 m/s relative to the train to a velocity of 2 m/s relative to the train in, say 1 second. Another passenger (Ender) sitting on the same train watches Jason walk the 400 m length of the train in ~200 seconds.

I assume you accept that there is no problem with this.

Scenario 2. Exactly the same as above, except now there is a train travelling in the opposite direction at 1 m/s below the speed of light. From the point of view of a passenger on that train (Kimmie), the first train is approaching at c - 1 m/s. Kimmie sees Jason accelerate towards her. If she waits long enough, she will see Jason reach his final speed with respect to his train and proceed to walk along the length of his train, in the direction of Kimmie. Since Jason is walking at 2 m/s relative to his train, and Kimmie’s train is travelling towards Jason’s train at c - 1 m/s, how fast is Jason travelling towards Kimmie’s train?

I assume you accept that there is no problem with Jason walking on his train. After all, what difference does it make to Jason if Kimmie’s train is approaching at close to the speed of light? (Assuming they don’t collide, of course.)

Scenario 3. Exactly the same as Scenario 2, except this time it is Kimmie’s train that is stopped at the train station and Jason’s train is approaching Kimmie’s at c - 1 m/s. In other words, Jason attempts to accelerate from 0 m/s to 2 m/s and walk along the length of his train at 2 m/s while his train is travelling at c - 1 m/s.

Does this make a difference?

The correct answer, of course, is “No”. All three scenarios have exactly the same outcome. All of these things remain true in all of the scenarios:

1. Ender sees Jason take 1 second to accelerate up to his walking speed of 2 m/s and take ~200 seconds to walk the length of the train, which is 400 m.
2. In scenarios 2 and 3 Jason’s train and Kimmie’s train are approaching each other at c - 1 m/s (i.e. 1 m/s below the speed of light). By this I mean that Ender sees Kimmie’s train approach at c - 1 m/s and Kimmie sees Jason/Ender’s train approach at c - 1 m/s. Which one is “stationary” and which one is “moving” makes no difference.
3. Jason never approaches Kimmie’s train at the speed of light or faster than the speed of light. (In fact, from Kimmie’s point of view, Jason is travelling at so close to c - 1 m/s that it’s hard to even measure that he’s moving faster than his train at all.)
4. Ender sees that Kimmie’s train is really, really short, while his own train is 400 m long. Ender also notices that the clock on Kimmie’s train is running really slow. Meanwhile, Kimmie sees that Ender’s train is really, really short, while her own train is (say) 400 m long. Kimmie also notices that the clock on Ender’s train is running really slow.

The statement would be false no matter how the person was accelerating.

The statement needs no argument in relativity.

It is a matter of kinetic energy which goes to infinity at the speed of light, and can never be reached by acceleration, as we know it, now.

Objects of mass can not accelerate at the speed of light.

The statement is false because it assumes velocities add in a simple way. They do not. There is nothing stopping Jason from travelling at 2 m/s relative to his train while his train is travelling at c - 1 m/s relative to some outside observer. The outside observer simply doesn’t see Jason to be travelling at 2 m/s + (c - 1) m/s = c + 1 m/s. While Jason seems himself travelling at 2 m/s, the outside observer sees him travelling at c - 1 m/s plus a tiny, tiny bit. Both are correct. Even if Jason were to travel at c - 1 m/s relative to the train and the train was travelling at c - 1 m/s to the outside observer, the outside observer still wouldn’t see Jason travelling at c or greater. It would still be less than c. That is, from the outside observer’s point of view, 299,792,457 m/s + 299,792,457 m/s < 299,792,458 m/s.

 

[kimmielittle]

Kimmielittle, do you know the difference between velocity and acceleration?

Yeppers!! “To Walk” is to change velocity by acceleration.

Care to disprove it?

Your statement that I answered:

                 Originally Posted by **JasonSB**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7257627#post7257627)                 
             *

. Therefore*, if the train was travelling at exactly 2 km/h below the speed of light,** and the same person was to walk at exactly 4 km/h from the back of the train to the front of the train, they must be travelling at exactly 2 km/h above** the speed of light, comprehensively proving that all physicists are stupid and that the Theory of Relativity can be overturned by a “kid”.

.

to walk

To change velocity by accelerating.

they must be travelling at exactly 2 km/h above the speed of light,

The above statement, that I answered, is not an argument of relativity. It is a statement of kinetic energy impossibility, as we know it.

It is false, because of one thing.
It is a matter of kinetic energy which goes to infinity at the speed of light, and can never be reached by acceleration, as we know it, now.

Objects of mass can not accelerate at the speed of light.

Let alone, “2km/h above the speed of light”… remember infinity ].

No need to argue relativity in your above statement. No need for outside observers. It makes no difference what they observe.

I thought you were a “scientist”?

 

[JasonSB]

Warming may be real but the fact of warming says nothing whatever about whether its cause is anthropogenic.

That’s true. So what? Did you miss all the explanations as to why the present warming is known to be largely anthropogenic? I thought you were paying closer attention. I suggest reading the IPCC reports, they have quite a good section on detection and attribution studies.

But let’s get back to the topic at hand, shall we? We are talking about the BoM media release. The BoM media release states, quite clearly, that the enhanced greenhouse effect is responsible for about 0.5 to 1.0 degree of observed warming around the globe. Perhaps the Australian terminology was a bit confusing for you? Here’s the Australian Academy of Science definition:

enhanced greenhouse effect. An increase in the natural process of the greenhouse effect, brought about by human activities, whereby greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons and nitrous oxide are being released into the atmosphere at a far greater rate than would occur through natural processes and thus their concentrations are increasing. Also called anthropogenic greenhouse effect or climate change.

As I said: AGW is real. Any report on this media release that claims it says it is not is obviously wrong.

Untrue again. They may have separated the UHI contribution but that surely proves nothing about the cause of the remainder of the warming.

How do you know it’s untrue? They certainly made the claim in their media release. Have you studied their scientific papers to see what they did wrong? Or are you just making it up?

No, they don’t. If they remove the UHI component properly then all they know is what the true amount of warming was but this provides no evidence as to its cause.

And if we were trying to base an entire theory of AGW on the contents of this media release then your comments might in some way be relevant. But since we have extensive detection and attribution studies we can turn to that’s not a problem.

But I’m still intrigued by your claim that they don’t know something that their media release claims that they do. Do you have scientific papers you can cite that point out the errors they made? Failing that, can you point out the flaw in their methodology? Or are you just making it up?

Perhaps the BoM should have been reading more as their recent announcement that “Bureau of Meteorology researchers have found that daytime temperatures in our cities are warming more rapidly than those of the surrounding countryside and that this is due to the cities themselves.” surely implies that this realization was new to them. I take that to be what “have found” means.

It certainly implies that they have not studied the difference in city vs urban trends until now to quantify the difference. But that does not mean that others haven’t been doing so for decades. As I already proved by providing you a link to 20+ year-old scientific papers explaining the issue and how it’s resolved. Did you miss that? GISS adjusts the raw BoM data so it doesn’t matter whether this is “new” to BoM or not.

Whatever the cause, after identifying and supposedly adjusting for the UHI it is interesting to note that the raw data shows a smaller warming trend than does the adjusted data. Given that the raw data would include the UHI, this result is a bit counterintuitive.

Don’t forget the raw data needs to have other effects removed first. Like, in Darwin, when the themometer type was changed and moved from the sunny side of a post office to a shelter at the airport. Any idiot looking at the raw data would mistakenly conclude that there was a dramatic cooling in Darwin in the early 1940s. (In fact, some idiots actually did.) So dramatic that it actually overwhelms the otherwise positive trend. When this is corrected for, you are left with a warming trend. Now depending on the site, UHI may or may not need to be corrected for, but regardless of whether the trend is left as-is (no UHI) or is corrected downwards (to compensate for UHI), it will still show a stronger warming trend compared to the “raw” data.

You said yourself that AGW and UHI are not the only factors. Why, then, would it be counterintuitive for UHI-adjusted data to show a greater trend in some cases than the raw data?

You want an example of UHI adjustment reducing the trend? Here’s one – the first city I checked when I was going over that kid’s results was Buffalo. Here’s the raw data:

data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425725280000&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1

Here’s the data after adjustment:

data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425725280000&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

Noooo! The trend is reduced!!!

To pick another at random, how about Tombstone? This is one that should not be adjusted. Raw:

data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722730040&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1

Adjusted:

data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722730040&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

Noooo! It’s the same!!!

Feel free to “audit” to your heart’s content. I could show you the results of a study to see if there was any bias in the adjustments across all stations but I’m afraid that would spoil your fun.

True, it admitted nothing. They demonstrated that their calculations were incorrect when they started doing them differently.

No, they did not. But if you have more than a fallacious inference from a media release to base your claim on, feel free to substantiate it.

 

[kimmielittle]

Strange. I didn’t notice any sarcasm when John21652 originally brought it up.

I didn’t say anything because my friend John, doesn’t present himself as a “scientist”.

It is a wondrous and dangerous position when you chose to present yourself as an authoritarian figure and make an appeal to authority fallacy in logic.

That is why you, as an authoritarian figure, that you chose to present yourself as, have little room for “oppsies” committed, as that authoritarian figure

 

[John21652]

There is a moral side to the environment that is rarely mentioned, and I think it’s something the Catholic Church would be doing a great service to focus on.

If our personal impact to the environment is due to our laziness, sloth, attachment to things, vanity, greed, then the Church should help us to recognize these sorts of weaknesses.

The Church shouldn’t get wrapped up in the global power point of the environment, but should instead focus at the individual moral point.

If I throw the oil down the storm drain because I am lazy and don’t want to exert the effort to dispose of it properly, that’s a moral issue the Church should remind me about.

If I am vane, and try to acquire a car every year in order to feel popular, that’s a moral issue that could lead to other problems.

If I drive in small ways the demand for all sorts of exotic foods because I like their taste and think that I deserve these, maybe there’s a deeper moral weakness in me.

If I am too lazy to take care of my tools and let them rust and then simply go purchase more tools, then there’s a problem.

And if all such habits set others off to live in the same way…

This is the moral problem that needs to be surfaced to Catholics, not the nonsense about Global Warming and power politics, and “sending messages” and earth worship, and forced compliance and removal of freedom…a Totalitarian approach to the environment for instance.

Some of these described ways of living…in sloth…in vanity…are indicators of other problems with my interior life.

Beautifully put.